MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1576444319 · doi:10.3233/ida-2012-0549

Improving multi-view semi-supervised learning with agreement-based sampling

2012· article· en· W1576444319 on OpenAlexafffund
Jin Huang, Jelber Sayyad-Shirabad, Stan Matwin, Su Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueIntelligent Data Analysis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMachine learningSemi-supervised learningComputer scienceCo-trainingArtificial intelligenceSupervised learningSampling (signal processing)Set (abstract data type)Relation (database)Independence (probability theory)Unsupervised learningQuality (philosophy)Instance-based learningData miningMathematicsArtificial neural networkStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semi-supervised learning algorithms are widely used to build strong learning models when there are not enough labeled instances. Some semi-supervised learning algorithms, including co-training and co-EM, use multiple views to build learning models. P

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntelligent Data AnalysisSame topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207